Keep Olbermann on the air! He's an avatar for every other shit-for-brains Liberal who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and has no idea that the real smart people are laughing their asses off at him.

The funny thing is that O'Reilly kills him in the ratings. When presented with that fact, he always fell back on, "O'Reilly isn't doing a news show" as if Olbermann were.This simply puts the last nail in the coffin of that argument. I'm interested in seeing what they put up in his place.

Never mind that Fox News contributed millions to the GOP and was the defacto media arm for them.

Please provide proof of the first assertion.

The only program I watch on Fox News is the O'Reilly program. Without exception, O'Reilly brings on a conservative and a liberal to discuss every issue.

I did watch some of Fox's election coverage. The liberal and conservative pundits were equal in number. I did not notice any cheering for either side from the general news personnel of Fox, Britt Hume and Megan Kelly.

st - sorry but Meghan Kelly was breathless at times reporting the GOP victories. You could tell her obvious glee at what was happening. Fox News - fair & balanced. Yeah right. Shepperd Smith is probably the only one over there - and BTW he believes in global warming.

st - sorry but Meghan Kelly was breathless at times reporting the GOP victories. You could tell her obvious glee at what was happening. Fox News - fair & balanced. Yeah right. Shepperd Smith is probably the only one over there - and BTW he believes in global warming.

She did no such thing.

I heard an interview with her in which she discussed the allegation leveled against her by a Washington Post opinion editor that she favored Republicans. That opinion editor deliberately lied and said that only one liberal appeared on Fox's election coverage.

How did you hear her "obvious glee?"

I didn't. Megan Kelly is a very professional interviewer and host, and she always treats her guests with dignity and respect.

"Never mind that Fox News contributed millions to the GOP and was the defacto media arm for them."

Right, because only Democrats can have media arms like MSNBC, NPR, CBS, CNN, the NYT, etc. Anything else is un-American.

Separately, he was a hateful bastard. Only those still in thrall to campus radicalism could stomach him, and that group is locked in the Democratic camp without Olberman. I suspect his presence hurts the left more than he helps.

There is no reason on God's green earth why this guy shouldn't be able to give whatever he wants to whichever party or person he wants. Our campaign finance laws are completely stupid and clearly unconstitutional. And, by the way, he ought to be able to give every freaking penny he has anonymously. Because it is nobodies fucking business.

Fox does have a couple of decidedly partisan shows: Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity.

Those shows are clearly labeled as such.

I also watch the Fox & Friends show for a few minutes some mornings. Once again, absolutely equal representation of liberals and conservatives.

And, Beck and Hannity are too much for me. Both are far too partisan and strident for me, so I don't watch them.

Fox also has a Geraldo Rivera show somewhere in its lineup. He's about a left as you can get. He's not on as much, but I think that's because, just like in talk radio, there's not much of an audience for the extreme left.

It is a fucking outrage that this idiot gets to be a martyr for a good and honorable cause. I don't give a shit whether George Soros gives a million billion dollars to the Obama campaign. Please let us use our money how we want to. Please.

The difference between Faux News opinon shows and MSNBC is that Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow use FACTS to make their points. Whereas on Faux News it's just spewing of GOP Psycho Talker points. Usually initiated by Flush Limpballs.

Them's MSNBC's rules and if Olbermann violated them knowingly, he has only himself to blame.

However, the rules themselves are absurd and chickenshit. Every journalist is also a citizen, with a right to vote as he or she pleases, and to support candidates and causes of their choice.

It's hardly as if Olbermann's sympathies were in doubt, any more than are O'Reilly's or Hannity's, (not that they're journalists...they, as is Olbermann, are commentators and editorialists, primarily, marshalling facts--or innuend--and conclusions drawn therefrom, whether legitimate or tendentious, in support of their editorializing).

Journalists should be biased toward a point of view, as long as their biases are not hidden, and journalism should be practiced not as a mere recording of facts but also as a search for articles of indictments for crimes committed against the public by those in high office, (whether public or corporate).

It would have been brilliant if he had been caught donating to conservative candidates. No one would have known what to do with the fact, his ratings would have shot up. Had he been the liberal Colbert all this time, putting on an act. Was he fostering political discussion? Imagine all the theories.

Would have been great.

This is just uninterestingly predictable, confirming what was already known and giving NBC an excuse to get out of its crazy contract with him.

Even with virtually all of the major networks and newspapers pushing Liberalism 24/7,365 days a year, most Americans still recognize it for the disaster it is. Must piss off the chicks at The View (and their intellectual equivalents in the electorate) that all the snark and one-sidedness in the world can't save their pathetic cause.

The difference between Faux News opinon shows and MSNBC is that Ed Shultz, Rachel Maddow use FACTS to make their points. Whereas on Faux News it's just spewing of GOP Psycho Talker points. Usually initiated by Flush Limpballs.

Look, it is time to quit pretending that any of these people are "journalists." They aren't, they are generally news readers or they are opinion meisters. Either way, only an absolute moron would think that the MSM is not left or that Fox is not right leaning. By abetting this charade we are prolonging it.

Under FEC rules, an individual donor may give only $2,400 to a candidate per general election campaign. The FEC filings for Olbermann’s contributions list an address that is a Mailboxes Etc. storefront in New York, and it also lists his occupation as a newscaster for NBC Television.

What has Olbermann ever said that was a lie? Media Matters has it well documented that all Faux News commentators are pathological liars. Liberals don't lie, because reality proves that psycho-conservatism is a lie. F.e., how since 1981 the middle class has been flushed down the toilet thanks to Reagan and continued on by his protege Flush Limpballs.

There's no money in appear. That's true. But appearing on those programs is a useful way to advertising public appearances and generate audiences.

All that proves is that liberals are into the fine arts and have HUGE audiences for things like that. Meanwhile in hick country what do they have - Toby Keith? It's no coincidence that 90% of PhDs are Democrats. They understand what lunacy is represented by trickle-down and all that business.

Grijalva not only opposed the immigration law — known as S.B. 1070 — but inadvertently put himself in electoral jeopardy by calling for an economic boycott of his own home state in response, a move that didn't go over so well with cash-strapped Arizonans.

All that proves is that liberals are into the fine arts and have HUGE audiences for things like that. Meanwhile in hick country what do they have - Toby Keith? It's no coincidence that 90% of PhDs are Democrats. They understand what lunacy is represented by trickle-down and all that business.

Only an idiot would take a three letter word "fox" and make it a four letter word "faux" to magnify his stupidity. Why do they do it? Why, oh why, do leftists think that some not so subtle typing is a marker of intelligence? They actually do. Odd.

Reagan’s murder of the middle class and its institutions, a process which has led directly to Bush’s neoconservatives, has just now been noticed by progressive commentators (favorite, from Canadian painter Robert Bateman – here: http://www.batemanideas.com/GlobeMail.html), some of whom have suggestions for how to resuscitate it. In reflecting on the nearly disastrous Canadian election, I noted how easy it is for conservatives to destroy the results of the hard work and sacrifices (up to and including their lives) of generations of progressives (if you look at the list, you can see that all good is done by progressives, and conservatives spend all their time trying to destroy the good).

Reagan came to office and told the plutocrats to take everything that they wanted. I mean everything. Today, CEOs make 571 times their average employees’ wage. Today’s male white collar workers in America only earn, in real dollars, six cents per hour more today than they earned in 1973. Health care is increasingly hard to come by, no job is ever safe, Americans work far longer hours and suffer from stress-related illnesses once unheard of. As an Economic Policy Institute report noted, ‘What income growth there was over the 1979-1989 period was driven primarily by more work at lower wages.’

Shoutingthomas: You have confirmed something I have always suspected regarding the music on NPR. The music before and after their segments is always, to me, an interpretation of what is coming or has just finished. Somber scary music for conservative topics or pieces on the military, lilting odes to the happy liberal commentary on building wells in the 3rd world. I do not have the vocabulary for it, but I would be obliged if you would just confirm that I am not completely insane.

What happened to Russia in the 90s was really started by Reagan’s attack on Americans in the 80s. When Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers in 1981, he told America he was literally willing to kill us all if we didn’t give in to his plan to transfer the wealth out of the pockets of the middle- and lower-middle classes and into the plutocrats’ offshore accounts. It was so shocking that it worked. The air controller’s union broke – and so did a whole way of life. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, we are all miserable wage slaves . . . or exiles.”

I will defend Olbermann- there should be no restrictions on donations- it's un-American IMO.

But the MSM employer should require they disclose how they voted and the donations.

Our local lib columnist was whining about "secret corporate donors" to Repub causes and candidates but she could never understand the enormous value of the support by her employer {The Phila Inquirer} of many liberal candidates.

I know we have two Alex's that regularly post here and one of them seems to be from the universe where Spock has the gotee. Regardless of which is which, I'm starting to believe that this incarnation is a liberal moby.

As far as I can tell, most corporations, news ones and otherwise, tend to donate to both political parties. I think they're buying access more than indicating preference.

From what I've seen, more corporate money seems to go into Democrat pots than not. Which makes sense when you think about it; as the "Regulators", they're the ones more likely to really screw you over if you don't keep them happy. Republicans just lower taxes, usually for everybody...no net gain. Democrats, if they like you, will write a law that destroys your competitors while leaving you king.

As the world turns. Being a shill for Obama has suddenly become a useless nuisance, like General Patton after the war ended. His bosses just needed any excuse to remove his big mouth. Another trophy on Fox News's wall along with Grayson's ugly face. It looks like for all their gravitas these men failed while Sarah Palin goes along being nice to everyone. Social intelligence wins again.

If we are to believe the purity of teabagger intentions, we would have to believe that they are only interested in lower deficits, not zero deficits. Because obviously they never make this very clear, do they? But there were always plenty of signs at these rallies showing that Obama = monkey.

Let's see while you whine about FOX and Limbaugh Republicans have had t deal with in the balance and for decades prior-

ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR Washington Post, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, late night talk shows, Comedy Central-Stewart and Colbert, Vanity Fair the *women's Magazines*, Oprah, The View, and Hollywood movies that by a margin of 9 to 1 lecture the American public about the Democrat talking points and guilt trips.

So in the face of all that-plus the books that are published greatly slanting to the liberal agenda- you guys want to whine about FOX news which is a cable channel and Rush Limbaugh on that modern media the radio.

Alex: Between 2001 and 2008 the economy was going along pretty well. In the 4th Q of 08 the financial meltdown that began in 07 accelerated. By the end of 2008 it was apparent that the economy was in deep shit. We elected a president without demonstrable business credentials and the country as a whole was a bit nervous. When it became apparent that the new president was going to "use" the financial disaster as an opportunity to advance expensive programs instead of actually addressing the financial disaster the tea party was born. It was not born in 1998 or 2001 or 1630 because none of the above mentioned facts intersected until the first Quarter of 2009. To suggest that it is because of the race of the president is absurd and indicative of your lack of interest in the topic as a serious person.

These ethics rules are in place in these rather ethics free organizations because the help keep the New Organization from being leaned on for contributions...and buying exclusive stories/interviews by being the highest bidder.

Now, that these contributions have been exposed, we know the truth! Olbermann is a big leftist! Sure, his constant pushing of leftist party politics was worth tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, but these donations of $2400 to political campaigns probably put them over the top!

Seriously though, considering how hard he pushes for people he likes and against people he doesn't like on his show, why would he bother with actual campaign contributions?

Well, Alex, since the middle class has been destroyed, and it was Reagan firing the air traffic controllers that did it, that means it destroyed the airline industry as well. That's the reason I can't fly from Mississippi to LA for $199.

Oh wait, I can..

Okay, that's the reason over the last four years with a Democratic congress that the gap between rich and poor has narrowed, because obviously that was the antidote to the Reaganism.

If you're worth less than your employer pays you, but have a contract, it's probably not too smart to violate the terms of that contract. If you're worth more, then it doesn't matter as much. Olbermann probably thought he was in the latter category.

I'm not entirely sure anyone here cares that he donated to anyone at any time. There are two things that are hysterical here. 1) that he knowingly violated his employer's rules regarding such things and 2) that he maintained that his was a news show (as opposed to punditry, I suppose).

It's always fun to watch your political opponent twist in the wind especially when they are hoisted on their own petard, so to speak.

Anyone that's upset about the actual contributions should admit that they didn't realize he was a pundit, not a journalist. Anyone that admits that needs to have their head examined.

1) I don't have a problem with the contributions. Did ANYONE labor under the delusion that Olbermann was anything OTHER than a partisan hack in the first place?

2) As was pointed out elsewhere, I think this is more about GE trying to make nice with a Republican Congress than their laughable "ethics and standards." They've spent countless hours and money funding opposition to Republicans for years, but now that Republicans are back in charge of the purse strings they want all that government money they've been raking in to keep flowing. Sorry. Too little, too late. You reap what you sow.

I for one do not think he should be suspended. He was just excercising his first amendment rights and the right to contribute to the party of his choice.

Unlike AlphaLiberal, John McCain and Russ Feingold...I think people should be able to contribute to whoever they want to. Even if they are corporations. They should even be able to run ads even if they try to pretend it is a news show. I mean come on...who do you think he fooled.

The First Amendment trumps all. He should not be suspened.

Fired for being a tool and a ratings disaster. Sure. But not because of this.

Alex is trolling hard today. For the record, I do not think the Tea Partyists are racist, nor do I refer to them as "teabaggers," at least not since the day they were exhorted to mail teabags to the White House.

But if Olbermann must go, why not give his slot back to the ever popular Mr. Marlo Thomas?

On the other hand. Olberman and every other news person and reporter SHOULD be able to contribute to political parties.....as long as it is prominently disclosed who they have contributed to and exactly how much.

This is the standard for advisors in my industry who are making stock or other investment recommendations. I have to disclose whether I or any other family members actually own the companies that I am recommending.

Open disclosure.

I think it should be mandatory for everyone who is reporting AND for those who are receiving tax payer money. ALL Government employees should have to disclose.

I love this conservative misdirection tactic: O'Reilly's ratings are better than Olbermann's. Thus he's factually more right than Olbermann. How does that even work logically?

Since reruns of NCIS and Spongebob kill O'Reilly in the ratings on a nightly basis (it's not even close), I guess we can safely assume that Mark Harmon and Squidward are just simply more factually correct than O'Reilly.

I love this conservative misdirection tactic: O'Reilly's ratings are better than Olbermann's. Thus he's factually more right than Olbermann. How does that even work logically?

If you are referring to my mention of the ratings between the two (which I did, twice), perhaps you misunderstood me.

On two seperate occasions, Olbermann poo-poo'd the fact that O'Reilly was mopping the floor with him in ratings because he contended that O'Reilly wasn't a news show and thus it was apples to oranges. Ipso facto, Olberman saw his show as a news show despite the fact it was pretty blatantly a left-leaning attempt at opinion evening cable news network fare.

All of the talking heads industry on Cable TV since CNN started their genre with Robert Novak's CrossFire in the 1990s has been 90% entertainment. Pat Buchanan still around if NBC wants to let Maddow and Buchanan do a show together. Now That's Entertainment.

"Seriously though, considering how hard he pushes for people he likes and against people he doesn't like on his show, why would he bother with actual campaign contributions?"

Maybe because he puts his money where his mouth is? Maybe because he believes backing his candidates of choice with actual money donations is a way of offering materially helpful support to candidates who need it?

Maybe because he puts his money where his mouth is? Maybe because he believes backing his candidates of choice with actual money donations is a way of offering materially helpful support to candidates who need it?

Sure, but in direct opposition to the rules of his employer it was his responsibility to know about? He kind of sullenly sunset the WPOTD segment owing to some upper pressure and this is just the second shoe to fall. Something else is going on here, but KO should have known better. He's an AG-COM grad after all, and those guys are pretty on the ball.

When Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers in 1981, he told America he was literally willing to kill us all

Literally.

My grandmother, a staunch democrat who was a lifetime govt employee making very little money, always told me she hated Reagan except for when he fired those air traffic controllers. She thought that was the best thing he ever did. If only she knew he was literally trying to kill us all.

I used to watch Countdown because I enjoyed Olbermann as a sportscaster with ESPN. Over time it got too much (and that was awhile ago.)

OTOH I could never stand O'Reilly, arrogant, talks too much... However, lately, because my wife likes him, I've come to conclude he's right of center but the show isn't strident and doesn't just present liberal comments or commentators as objects of derision (as Hannity does)

So here I am now wholly unable to tolerate Olbermann and now able to listen to an entire O-Reilly show (not that I'm a regular viewer.)

Finally MSNBC lineup:Schultz; Matthews; Olbermann; Maddow; O'Donnell

FOX O'Reilly, Hannity and Van Susteren (thankfully Beck on too early for my time zone)

Not to play the we're less partisan than you are game, but there's no one on MSNBC as moderate as Van Susteren (and I've already compared O'Reilly and Olbermann)

There is a lot going on right now, but don’t forget to show your support for Nancy Pelosi in her fight to stay Democratic leader in the House of Representatives.

Keep in mind that after the 2002 election debacle, we were told making Nancy Pelosi Democratic leader would be a disaster. Supposedly, we would have been better off with Harold Ford Jr. (yeah, that’s really who ran against her eight years ago). But instead of disaster, the result was that Democrats won more seats, and passed more legislation, than anyone thought was possible eight years ago.

Keep in mind that after the 2004 election debacle, we were told that turning to Howard Dean as DNC chair would be a disaster. The result was two consecutive Democratic sweeps in 2006 and 2008.

We have proven that Democrats can win with the progressive wing of the party in charge. And really, victory isn’t even possible for us unless the progressive wing is in charge, because Blue Dogs just agree with Republicans on too much policy.

"...the profession (ha ha) of journalism, just like being a judge is that you are supposed to be held to a higher standard and maintain your absolute impartiality."

Says who? In fact, it was self-imposed by publishers, starting only in the late 19th Century. Wikipedia states:

"Some historians, like Gerald Baldasty, have observed that 'objectivity' went hand in hand with the need to make profits in the newspaper business by selling advertising.[citation needed] Publishers did not want to offend any potential advertising customers and therefore encouraged news editors and reporters to strive to present all sides of an issue. In a similar vein, the rise of wire services and other cooperative arrangements forced journalists to produce more "middle of the road" stories that would be acceptable to newspapers of a variety of political persuasions."[citation needed]

"Objective reporting" to the degree it can really exist, has its value, but I also support the notion that it is equally valuable for journalists to be openly partisan, as long as they're open about their position, and they can thus produce journalism intended to effect change, rather than just an artificially "neutral" recitation of facts. Partisan journalism is not invalid as long as the journalist gets his facts right.

"I suppose you are good with doctors who receive kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies pushing one drug over another?

The concept is the same. The doctor is supposed to be impartially prescribing based on what is the best course of treatment and not being swayed by money or other influence."

I'm not, but it goes on anyway. The thing is, one can always factcheck a journalist, and bad reporting may not kill you; a doctor's prescription practices can have more severe or immediate personal consequences to the patient than will partisan reporting.

When Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers in 1981, he told America he was literally willing to kill us all

Anyone else remember Berkley Brethed's Bloom County treatment of this story? He had Santa's elves striking for this and that and then showed them all gathered around a tv being told by the Gipster they were fired. The subsequent elf riots were incredibly funny Sunday comics fare and were about as real as Alex's faux liberalism.

While I think Mr O is about the most egregious asshole (next to possibly alex) ever, I agree with Bill Kristol's take: Olberman is not a journalist, he's a showman--an entertainer for the left; he probably accounts for what little viewership MSNBC has--he should not have to have his first amendment rights violated.

And before trooper beats me to it, the only thing worse than a journalist is a lawyer (or vice versa).

Anyone wondering where Alex/PB&J gets his economic and political analysis, look no further than Al Reuters or the local chapter of the Noam Chomsky fan club in economics department your nearest big name university.

Trooper York said...

In contrast, Marvel had very few gay superheroes.

I mean Spiderman was just a nerd who always ends with the hot chicks. Sort of like Instapundit.

Obviously Obama wasn't the only one who didn't "get it" about what November 2nd was all about. Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. And we're talking about really s-l-o-w learners.

The naivete of conservatives is like the trust of small children. It's endearing the way many here think that this is the end of Olbermann. His many dozens of listeners will not be disturbed by his crime and will demand his reinstatement. Olbermann will offer some kind of apology which MSNBC after due contemplation will accept. After this demonstration of the high standards of MSNBC and the deep repentance of Keith Olberbmann, his show will go back on the air. This publicity stunt will be a ratings bonanza, and his viewership will swell from dozens to hundreds. You are being manipulated.

William: You may well be right, this whole matter could be a short con. Holier than all MSNBC demonstrates its creds by firing its star thus compelling others (say Fox to randomly select a competitor) to reveal any malfeasance of their own. Everybody in the "news" business mounts their high horse, everybody in the news business hurumphs and hurumps. Olbermann goes back to work a hero. The concept of a stupid campaign finance law never arises, is never discussed by the freedom of speech loving press.

Now if they could just get Maddow out for being a boring, unhot lesbian, it would be icing on the cake. And if they could get rid of Matthews for having a really fat head.Here's hoping that Olbermann's suspension is a permanent one. I don't ever watch him but his smugness is such that it carries over to what I'm watching on other channels.

I frankly don't understand this. Why is there a pretense of objective reporting? The whole thing is a vestige of network television, when the disgusting Fairness Doctrine was deemed allowable because the networks operate on a limited bandwidth owned by the government.

There is no such government ownership under the cable model. These cable news channels should just come out and call themselves what they are: leftist, conservative, communist, whatever.